mlb_official_scorers

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description provides the return structure '{roster:[{person, job}]}', which adds transparency beyond the name. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose read-only nature, side effects, permissions, or any other behavioral traits. It partially addresses behavioral expectations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise (two lines) with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and adds the return format. However, it is too brief to cover needed details; conciseness alone doesn't earn a 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and two undocumented parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations and usage context, making it insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool without additional inference.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema properties (date, sportId) have no descriptions. The tool description does not mention or explain these parameters, leaving their purpose and format entirely unclear. This is a critical gap for parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description is a noun phrase 'Official scorer assignments' lacking an action verb. It vaguely indicates the tool retrieves official scorer information, but doesn't specify if it lists or gets a specific assignment. Compared to sibling tools like mlb_attendance or mlb_awards, the purpose is implied but not explicitly stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No usage guidelines provided. The description gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Agent must infer from name and return format.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.